Paul Lambert

[bobzy]

Shots on target and possession are, essentially, meaningless statistics.  You can argue that having more of both would likely increase the chances of winning a game but neither stat counts in a league table - they're just used in an argument to state Lambert is/Villa are crap.

 

If you play a perfect counter attacking game and have 5 shots that hit the woodwork on the break, the stats would show low possession and 0 shots on target.  Similarly, what do blocked shots count as?  Do the stats take a guess at whether or not the ball would've hit the target?

 

We lack an attacking edge at the moment (hey, that's a surprise given our injuries, eh?  Wait - just another "excuse"...) but, even in a tepid display against Newcastle, managed to carve out a couple of decent opportunities that were missed.  The Agbonlahor header is the one that sticks in my mind.  We've since played 4 of the best teams in the league and, indeed, Europe.  Yet people are wanting us to play an open, attacking game with higher possession?  Just insane.  Never going to happen and not going to happen for 75% of the other teams who play in the league we're in.

 

I sense some fans care more about beating Lambert with sticks than the results of Aston Villa - which is pathetic.

[Mantis]

As far as I know blocked shots don't count as being on target regardless of where they are - just another reason why the shots on target stat is so meaningless.

[Dodgyknees]

What's the point? With the former approach there's at least the chance that we can pull a Liverpool and get something from the game. In the situation we're in, we have to be more pragmatic. We might not like it, but that's how it is.

Perhaps if we make a game of it against "better" opposition we might actually gain some confidence in that style and use it successfully at home against the "weaker" teams.

Or we can just sit back against them too and hope to pull a Liverpool.

Or be battered and lose confidence.

[ozvillafan]

 

Or be battered and lose confidence.

 

 

Yep. Let's let fear hold us back. Nothing breeds confidence like sitting back and only conceding 3 per game, right?

[Isa]

Or be battered and lose confidence.

Yep. Let's let fear hold us back. Nothing breeds confidence like sitting back and only conceding 3 per game, right?

I find it strange that 3-0 defeats have suddenly become considered respectable scorelines. Ironically, teams who gave it a good go at Chelsea like Leicester and Swansea lost by lesser deficits.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Isa

[ozvillafan]

 

 

Or be battered and lose confidence.

Yep. Let's let fear hold us back. Nothing breeds confidence like sitting back and only conceding 3 per game, right?

I find it strange that 3-0 defeats have suddenly become considered respectable scorelines. Ironically, teams who gave it a good go at Chelsea like Leicester and Swansea lost by lesser deficits.

 

 

Interestingly, we took the game to Man City. Only 2-0. Go figure.

[Dodgyknees]

 

 

Or be battered and lose confidence.

 

 

Yep. Let's let fear hold us back. Nothing breeds confidence like sitting back and only conceding 3 per game, right?

 

 

I'm just pointing out there are two sides to it. I also don't think it will be as easy for Chelsea/Arsenal in the next games. Man City.. I am not so sure about.

[Mantis]

From what I can recall we took the game to Arsenal in the first half an hour, those quick 3 goals just knocked the stuffing out of us.

 

One of my biggest concerns under Lambert actually has been how we often seem to concede goals in quick succession.

[sexbelowsound]

From what I can recall we took the game to Arsenal in the first half an hour, those quick 3 goals just knocked the stuffing out of us.

 

One of my biggest concerns under Lambert actually has been how we often seem to concede goals in quick succession.

 

That's something that also does my head in. I'd like to see us switch to a simple 4-4-2 against the bigger teams after we've conceded just so everyone knows where they are supposed to be whilst we stabilize.

 

It would be interesting to see how many of the quick goals we concede come down our flanks as well.

[Isa]

From what I can recall we took the game to Arsenal in the first half an hour, those quick 3 goals just knocked the stuffing out of us.

True. I was referring specifically to the Chelsea game where we basically just set our stall out for a 0-0. The Arsenal I haven't read too much into because of the virus.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Isa

[bobzy]

 

 

Or be battered and lose confidence.

Yep. Let's let fear hold us back. Nothing breeds confidence like sitting back and only conceding 3 per game, right?

I find it strange that 3-0 defeats have suddenly become considered respectable scorelines. Ironically, teams who gave it a good go at Chelsea like Leicester and Swansea lost by lesser deficits.

 

 

Chelsea had 30 shots against Swansea and 27 against Leicester compared to 17 against us.  The lesser deficits could well have been much, much higher.  Such is football sometimes.

 

 

(Don't let this get in the way of your hatred though, please).

[sne]

Yeah but shots and possession apparently doesn't matter...

[DelboyVilla]

Shots on target and possession are, essentially, meaningless statistics.  You can argue that having more of both would likely increase the chances of winning a game but neither stat counts in a league table - they're just used in an argument to state Lambert is/Villa are crap.

 

If you play a perfect counter attacking game and have 5 shots that hit the woodwork on the break, the stats would show low possession and 0 shots on target.  Similarly, what do blocked shots count as?  Do the stats take a guess at whether or not the ball would've hit the target?

 

We lack an attacking edge at the moment (hey, that's a surprise given our injuries, eh?  Wait - just another "excuse"...) but, even in a tepid display against Newcastle, managed to carve out a couple of decent opportunities that were missed.  The Agbonlahor header is the one that sticks in my mind.  We've since played 4 of the best teams in the league and, indeed, Europe.  Yet people are wanting us to play an open, attacking game with higher possession?  Just insane.  Never going to happen and not going to happen for 75% of the other teams who play in the league we're in.

 

I sense some fans care more about beating Lambert with sticks than the results of Aston Villa - which is pathetic.

 

As you may have guessed I do not want Lambert as our manager and having watched 2 seasons of mostly turgid rubbish be served up on the pitch the sooner he is gone the better IN MY OPINION! You have a different opinion and that does not make everyone who disagrees with it pathetic. Some of us have sticks and some of us have excuses. It's all about opinions though!

[DelboyVilla]

Yeah but shots and possession apparently doesn't matter...

 

For everyone except Lambert's teams it does apparently? What about blocked shots? We usually have more than our fair share especially with Baker flying round the box. 

[bobzy]

Yeah but shots and possession apparently doesn't matter...

 

Definitely - although "shots" is a better indicator of how much pressure you're under than "shots on target".  Shots on target doesn't mean anything.

 

10 weak attempts from 30 yards that trickle into the goalkeeper's hands are 10 shots on target.  However, 10 shots that go narrowly wide with the keeper stranded, or 10 shots that hit the woodwork means 0 shots on target.  Which is a prospect you'd rather be facing?  (Edit:  I guess the latter as there's NO CHANCE of conceeding a goal; whereas a keeper could make a howler?)

 

Overall shots shows how much pressure that team is putting the other one under - how much attacking the team is doing.  Likewise, a lack of shows how little attacking the team is doing.  I'd hazard a guess that our shots conceeded is generally low and our shots attempted likewise (in fact, the lowest).

 

But yes, all of these things don't matter, they just indicate the pattern of a game.

Edited October 8, 2014 by bobzy

[bobzy]

 

As you may have guessed I do not want Lambert as our manager and having watched 2 seasons of mostly turgid rubbish be served up on the pitch the sooner he is gone the better IN MY OPINION! You have a different opinion and that does not make everyone who disagrees with it pathetic. Some of us have sticks and some of us have excuses. It's all about opinions though!

 

 

I didn't say everyone who disagrees with me is pathetic.  I said that people who would rather see Lambert suffer than have Aston Villa gain results is pathetic.  It seems to be the way a few people are (no names); look at the negatives in victories and, obviously, lambast the defeats.  Boring - be a fan rather than a hater.

[Isa]

 

Chelsea had 30 shots against Swansea and 27 against Leicester compared to 17 against us.  The lesser deficits could well have been much, much higher.  Such is football sometimes.

 

 

(Don't let this get in the way of your hatred though, please).

Well firstly a shot isn't therefore a chance and since you clearly didn't watch the games in question, your insight into how they might've panned out is of no interest to me whatsoever.

Going by your kind of reasoning though, we registered seven shots against Chelsea so we probably should've scored at least three eh?

As for your last line, it's so petty that it doesn't warrant a response.

[DelboyVilla]

 

 

As you may have guessed I do not want Lambert as our manager and having watched 2 seasons of mostly turgid rubbish be served up on the pitch the sooner he is gone the better IN MY OPINION! You have a different opinion and that does not make everyone who disagrees with it pathetic. Some of us have sticks and some of us have excuses. It's all about opinions though!

 

 

I didn't say everyone who disagrees with me is pathetic.  I said that people who would rather see Lambert suffer than have Aston Villa gain results is pathetic.  It seems to be the way a few people are (no names); look at the negatives in victories and, obviously, lambast the defeats.  Boring - be a fan rather than a hater.

 

 

 

Personally I always want us to win and I am as pleased as anyone when we do but if there is an area for concern or critism even when winning then raising it does not make people pathetic, boring or a hater. I don't hate Lambert but quite simply I think he is a poor manager and I think his record for the past 2 seasons is testament to that.

 

Some may choose to ignore weaknesses and bury their heads in the sand, that's their choice. I surpose they are the 'fan's?

Edited October 8, 2014 by DelboyVilla

[Mantis]

Just because somebody doesn't have the same criticisms as you doesn't mean they're "burying their heads in the sand".

[bobzy]

 

 

Chelsea had 30 shots against Swansea and 27 against Leicester compared to 17 against us.  The lesser deficits could well have been much, much higher.  Such is football sometimes.

 

 

(Don't let this get in the way of your hatred though, please).

Well firstly a shot isn't therefore a chance and since you clearly didn't watch the games in question, your insight into how they might've panned out is of no interest to me whatsoever.

Going by your kind of reasoning though, we registered seven shots against Chelsea so we probably should've scored at least three eh?

As for your last line, it's so petty that it doesn't warrant a response.

 

 

I watched the Chelsea vs. Leicester game and thought Leicester gave a brilliant account of themselves (especially in the first half) and looked a threat on the break - although I don't really remember any chances of note aside from a one on one (I think?) that was missed by someone.  The second half, Chelsea scored twice and could've had a couple more but, naturally, a team playing to close down and counter attack would get tired and conceed (does this sound familiar?).

 

I didn't watch the Swansea game - only saw the highlights on MOTD so, granted, I can't comment on the exact details of how the game was in terms of them "giving it a go".

 

And no, having seven shots obviously doesn't mean scoring three goals.  Although, if you think it should, that means Chelsea would've scored 13 against Swansea.  I think we're done here.

Edited October 8, 2014 by bobzy